> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > I think Python 3000 ought to use totally static scoping. That will > > make it possible to do optimize code using built-in names! [Moshe] > Isn't that another way of saying you want the builtin names to be > part of the language definition? Part of today's method advantages > is that new builtins can be added without any problems. The built-in names have always been part of the language definition in my mind. The way they are implemented doesn't reflect this, but that's just an implementation detail. How would you like it if something claimed to be Python but didn't support len()? Or map()? That doesn't mean you can't add new built-ins, and I don't think that the new implementation will prevent that -- but it *will* assume that you don't mess with the definitions of the existing built-ins. Of course you still will be able to define functions whose name overrides a built-in -- in that case the compiler can see that you're doing that (because it knows the scope rules and can see what you are doing). But you won't be able to confuse someone else's module by secretly sticking a replacement built-in into their module's __dict__. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4